I nake the case that the very reason for the Daugherty - Price run was that they DID blow it up and sell out for lottery picks instead of trying to scrape along for the 8th seed.

If you recall, the '85 Karl team was a collection of scrappy vets and so-so draft holdovers. they started slowly and ended up giving the Greatest Collection of Players in NBA history on one team one hell of a challenging series, causing them to expend enough energy to destroy what would have been a 3 peat run for them.

But interesting stat about that series, IIRC we outscored Boston by a point for the series while losing 3 games to 1.

And having 1 dude blow up for 120 points during Fantasy Football doesn't help you in the other 15 weeks he gets -6. But it is an interesting point considering how lopsided a few of those games were.

"All Beckett needs to do to cap off this mess is order some fried chicken and beer" – 5/10/12 before Beckett got chased in the 3rd at Fenway.

LP and JB those are some good points. I think everyone on the board agrees that to really be a championship competitor that this team will need to acquire a lot more talent. Not just any talent either but all-star level talent. The divergence is more around what is the most efficient way to do this. To me, I would wait and get a better read on our talent and how the CBA/lock-out develops.

I keep hoping that either Boston or LA knock off Dwade, Dbag and Bosh this year and that there is a one year lock-out and hard cap to prevent Miami from adding anything oher than true league minimum stiffs. If this all happens we could be in a very strong position relative to minimum 2012 salary commitments and good draft position to add some draft talent and veteran talent.

JB, that draft of Dougherty, Harper and Price was absolutely awesome. It might have been a once in a generation or once in multi generation draft. I don't know if any other team ever had a draft that good in the NBA? Add to it Hot Rod Williams who was drafted the year before but sat out due to the point shaving accusations and we had 4 amazing rookies all coming in during the same year. I still think if management would have been a bit more patient and kept Ron Harper they might have eventually knocked-off the Bulls. Who knows though. I do know that Ron Harper made some unpopular comments later in his career when he was playing with the Bulls saying that the Cavs team he was on was better then the Bulls but just had some unlucky breaks and amazing MJ performances.

One thing about that draft that I think is different then today is that I don't think back then that they had the lottery or at least by the time we traded Roy Hinson that we knew we were definitely getting the number 1 pick in the draft. I think that is a substantial difference vs trading someone for an approximate 10% shot at the top pick.

Look at how long it took the CAVS post Daugherty/Price/Williams/Nance to contend again. There were some really crappy years in there but unfortunately the luck of the pingpong balls and uncertain draft talent have a huge say in the rebuild.

I would argue exactly opposite: It was an ill-fated attempt to hang on and win as many games as possible (while winning a championship was impossible) that led to the turnaround taking so long.

The last Daugherty/Price year was '93-'94. After that we won: 43, 47, 42, 47, 22 (in a 50 game strike shortened season), 32, 30 and 29 games the next eight seasons. The last four of those seasons netted us the 8th pick (3 times) and the 6th pick once. The problem wasn't not enough luck with the ping-pong balls, the problem was too many wins and not enough ping-pong balls. It wsn't until we went full blown blow-up mode, sinking to just 17 victories in '02-'03, that we got the "prize." But even if we hadn't won that lottery we would have been set up to take a guy like Anthony or Wade who are guys a team can build with, even if not "around."

So, no, I'm not looking forward to another 17 win season (and I'll keep rooting for them to win every game I watch, which is almost all of them). But I'm also not looking forward to another four year stretch of 43, 47, 42 and 47 wins, either. Seems to me, in the NBA you have to pick your poison.

Funny thing is the Cavaliers even picking 8th 3 times and 6th once could have put together a better team had they not (after picking Miller and whiffing on Langdon) traded Crawford for Mihm, drafted Diop when many had Joe Johnson pegged in that spot, or picked Wagner (although that class BLOWS!).

Not to mention how many times picks were traded in marginal trades. Looks to me that the Cavaliers blowing also had a large/major contribution from horrible management. Even though this is well known, the Cavaliers 10 years of suck wasn't 100% due to draft position.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Even though this is well known, the Cavaliers 10 years of suck wasn't 100% due to draft position.

Agree 100%. If our front office is stupid enough to take Darko anywhere in the first round, let alone second overall, ahead of guys like Wade and 'Melo, then woe is us for sure. No doubt we could have put together a better team with the picks we had than we did - that's (a large) part of the reason we sucked enough to win only 17 games and get "him." But if you can put together better draft picks at the 8 spot three times in a row, I can probably put together even better picks with 1-5 spots in those drafts.

[And that was while we were winning <40 games. If you win 40 games, you don't often pick higher than 10 or so.]

Funny thing is the Cavaliers even picking 8th 3 times and 6th once could have put together a better team had they not (after picking Miller and whiffing on Langdon) traded Crawford for Mihm, drafted Diop when many had Joe Johnson pegged in that spot, or picked Wagner (although that class BLOWS!).

Not to mention how many times picks were traded in marginal trades. Looks to me that the Cavaliers blowing also had a large/major contribution from horrible management. Even though this is well known, the Cavaliers 10 years of suck wasn't 100% due to draft position.

Can't disagree with you.

But what might be a good exercize would be going back over those drafts and do the really unrealistic practice of perfect 20/20 hindsight and cherry pick the very best options we could have opted into. Then put that team on paper vs contenders. Would that get us to top 5 or 6 level team quality?

jb wrote:But what might be a good exercize would be going back over those drafts and do the really unrealistic practice of perfect 20/20 hindsight and cherry pick the very best options we could have opted into. Then put that team on paper vs contenders. Would that get us to top 5 or 6 level team quality?

Jim, I'm not sure that exercise gets us far, because the perfect-hindsight pick in year x affects the draft position in years (x + 1) and beyond.

e.g., I wanted the Cavs to draft Amare in 2002. But if they do that, then they likely (can't say for sure without a souped-up DeLorean and a kid in a sailor vest, but likely) finish with more than 17 wins in 2002-03, and then maybe they don't get the top pick in the 2003 draft (although "settling" for Melo would not have sucked).

That said, if you feel like throwing up in your mouth a little bit, consider that:

- in 1999, the Cavs took Tragic Langdon #12, with Corey Maggette and Ron Artest still on the board;- in 2000, they traded the rights to Jamal Crawford for the rights to Chris Mihm (hard to do any other hindsight on that draft, as that draft class smoked the biggest pole in draft history);- in 2001, they took DeSagana Diop with Joe Johnson still on the board;in 2002, they took Juanny over Amare.

And I will go to my grave convinced that the summer of 2004 paved the way for Bron's eventual departure. With Al Jefferson and Josh Smith on the board, Paxson shat away the pick by using it on Luke Jackson. In hindsight, I would have preferred the Cavs just forfeit the pick. Would have loved hearing David Stern announce, "with the #10 pick in the 2004 NBA Draft, the Cleveland Cavaliers select: no one". They would have gotten better value that way, for sure. Not saying that Jefferson or Smith would have been the ideal #2 guy alongside Bron, and either one of them would have duplicated the skills of the guy who REALLY should have been here in Boozer, but it would have given the Cavs a nice young player to pair with Bron. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

jb wrote:But what might be a good exercize would be going back over those drafts and do the really unrealistic practice of perfect 20/20 hindsight and cherry pick the very best options we could have opted into. Then put that team on paper vs contenders. Would that get us to top 5 or 6 level team quality?

Jim, I'm not sure that exercise gets us far, because the perfect-hindsight pick in year x affects the draft position in years (x + 1) and beyond.

e.g., I wanted the Cavs to draft Amare in 2002. But if they do that, then they likely (can't say for sure without a souped-up DeLorean and a kid in a sailor vest, but likely) finish with more than 17 wins in 2002-03, and then maybe they don't get the top pick in the 2003 draft (although "settling" for Melo would not have sucked).

That said, if you feel like throwing up in your mouth a little bit, consider that:

- in 1999, the Cavs took Tragic Langdon #12, with Corey Maggette and Ron Artest still on the board;- in 2000, they traded the rights to Jamal Crawford for the rights to Chris Mihm (hard to do any other hindsight on that draft, as that draft class smoked the biggest pole in draft history);- in 2001, they took DeSagana Diop with Joe Johnson still on the board;in 2002, they took Juanny over Amare.

And I will go to my grave convinced that the summer of 2004 paved the way for Bron's eventual departure. With Al Jefferson and Josh Smith on the board, Paxson shat away the pick by using it on Luke Jackson. In hindsight, I would have preferred the Cavs just forfeit the pick. Would have loved hearing David Stern announce, "with the #10 pick in the 2004 NBA Draft, the Cleveland Cavaliers select: no one". They would have gotten better value that way, for sure. Not saying that Jefferson or Smith would have been the ideal #2 guy alongside Bron, and either one of them would have duplicated the skills of the guy who REALLY should have been here in Boozer, but it would have given the Cavs a nice young player to pair with Bron. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Completely true.

I guess my end to the means was even if they had done everything metaphysically perfectly right where slotted, could they have realistically attained enough talent to overcome slotting via the draft?

Funny thing is the Cavaliers even picking 8th 3 times and 6th once could have put together a better team had they not (after picking Miller and whiffing on Langdon) traded Crawford for Mihm, drafted Diop when many had Joe Johnson pegged in that spot, or picked Wagner (although that class BLOWS!).

Not to mention how many times picks were traded in marginal trades. Looks to me that the Cavaliers blowing also had a large/major contribution from horrible management. Even though this is well known, the Cavaliers 10 years of suck wasn't 100% due to draft position.

Can't disagree with you.

But what might be a good exercize would be going back over those drafts and do the really unrealistic practice of perfect 20/20 hindsight and cherry pick the very best options we could have opted into. Then put that team on paper vs contenders. Would that get us to top 5 or 6 level team quality?

2nd round realistically. After that it would be about how they added/meshed to get past that point. Point taken, and to take it even further, if those years ('99-'02) #1's had fallen by some odd twist of fate to the Cavaliers I think we may still be 2nd round realistically. Those drafts were that bad in terms of #1 stud guy.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

jb wrote:But what might be a good exercize would be going back over those drafts and do the really unrealistic practice of perfect 20/20 hindsight and cherry pick the very best options we could have opted into. Then put that team on paper vs contenders. Would that get us to top 5 or 6 level team quality?

Jim, I'm not sure that exercise gets us far, because the perfect-hindsight pick in year x affects the draft position in years (x + 1) and beyond.

e.g., I wanted the Cavs to draft Amare in 2002. But if they do that, then they likely (can't say for sure without a souped-up DeLorean and a kid in a sailor vest, but likely) finish with more than 17 wins in 2002-03, and then maybe they don't get the top pick in the 2003 draft (although "settling" for Melo would not have sucked).

That said, if you feel like throwing up in your mouth a little bit, consider that:

- in 1999, the Cavs took Tragic Langdon #12, with Corey Maggette and Ron Artest still on the board;- in 2000, they traded the rights to Jamal Crawford for the rights to Chris Mihm (hard to do any other hindsight on that draft, as that draft class smoked the biggest pole in draft history);- in 2001, they took DeSagana Diop with Joe Johnson still on the board;in 2002, they took Juanny over Amare.

And I will go to my grave convinced that the summer of 2004 paved the way for Bron's eventual departure. With Al Jefferson and Josh Smith on the board, Paxson shat away the pick by using it on Luke Jackson. In hindsight, I would have preferred the Cavs just forfeit the pick. Would have loved hearing David Stern announce, "with the #10 pick in the 2004 NBA Draft, the Cleveland Cavaliers select: no one". They would have gotten better value that way, for sure. Not saying that Jefferson or Smith would have been the ideal #2 guy alongside Bron, and either one of them would have duplicated the skills of the guy who REALLY should have been here in Boozer, but it would have given the Cavs a nice young player to pair with Bron. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

How is Paxson skating?

That guy should be every bit the punch line of GM jokes as anyone in the history of the league.

Isiah Thomas bad. Elgin Baylor not knowing when the draft was bad. Blowing himself for getting rid of Kevin Ollie's contract despite the fact you're the moron that inked him to the horrible deal in the first place bad.

Just for S&G's I went back to 86 (b/c the Cavs 86 draft was brought up) and from 86 till now only 1 team has selected a player #1 overall and won a title with said player. That team did it twice (probably only counts as 1.5 though). S.A.

Also since 2000 there are only 3 NBA teams to win a title while having a player THEY drafted in the lottery on their roster. Boston, Miami and S.A.

However due to the power structure of the NBA only 5 different teams won titles in that span, so that point isn't as significant as it appears on the surface.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Just for S&G's I went back to 86 (b/c the Cavs 86 draft was brought up) and from 86 till now only 1 team has selected a player #1 overall and won a title with said player. That team did it twice (probably only counts as 1.5 though). S.A.

Also since 2000 there are only 3 NBA teams to win a title while having a player THEY drafted in the lottery on their roster. Boston, Miami and S.A.

However due to the power structure of the NBA only 5 different teams won titles in that span, so that point isn't as significant as it appears on the surface.

While it certainly can (and does) effect the point JB, we can easily recognize Boston wouldn't be on the small list if they did not acquire two HOF lottery picks to run with their own in Pierce, so I call that a wash.

Bottom line I shaving the frozen envelope land in your lap still requires not only nailing the pick but also managing and building the future of that pick correctly and relatively quickly if your are not LA or Boston.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Just for S&G's I went back to 86 (b/c the Cavs 86 draft was brought up) and from 86 till now only 1 team has selected a player #1 overall and won a title with said player. That team did it twice (probably only counts as 1.5 though). S.A.

Also since 2000 there are only 3 NBA teams to win a title while having a player THEY drafted in the lottery on their roster. Boston, Miami and S.A.

However due to the power structure of the NBA only 5 different teams won titles in that span, so that point isn't as significant as it appears on the surface.

Fair enough. But by my count (could be wrong) 16 of the 23 titles since 1986 have been won by teams with a top 3 pick (of their own) leading the way. Magic has 2, Isiah has 2, MJ has 6, Olajuwan has 2 and Timmy has 4. And that's not counting any of Shaq's 4 rings or giving Pau G. any credit for two of Kobe's rings.

Very true, I'm just pointing out that you NEED to hit the pick AND make it all work. Just getting the pick doesn't cut it, and well even if you can make something work you really need one of "those guys" most times. Without doing the work I wonder how many teams have won a title without a lottery pick and/or without a top flight player on the roster. Off the top of my head I'm guessing 3 tops.

Top flight = uber talent, one of the best at their position, consistent easy all star type.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:While it certainly can (and does) effect the point JB, we can easily recognize Boston wouldn't be on the small list if they did not acquire two HOF lottery picks to run with their own in Pierce, so I call that a wash.

Bottom line I shaving the frozen envelope land in your lap still requires not only nailing the pick but also managing and building the future of that pick correctly and relatively quickly if your are not LA or Boston.

Concur.

It is neither nature nor nurture exclusively. But when you are in a market and have the status of the cavs, the pressure is greater to do it via high, high lotto picks. But to be certain, you'd better hit on them and surround them right. But building a true contender drafting 7 thru 12 is damn near impossible in this market. I don't know what reasonable fans couldn't agree on that.

BTW - In the NBA caste system, what happened in Boston could and would never happen here. It's just a fact. I can't ay that point is relavant to us.